Reconstruction of a Speech Portrait of a Political Leader based on the Letter Exchange of Ivan the Terrible (Experience of Pragmalinguistic Analysis)

Zyubina Irina Anatolevna ORCID: 0000-0002-1265-8366 PhD in Philology Associate Professor of the Department of Linguistics and Professional Communication, Southern Federal University 344022, Russia, Rostov region, Rostov-On-Don, lane. University, 93 iazyubina@sfedu.ru Myasishchev Georgii Igorevich PhD in Philology Associate Professor at the Department of Russian as a Foreign language, Don State Technical University 344018, Russia, Rostov region, Rostov-On-Don, Gagarin Square str., 1, room 8-539 georgy-2583@yandex.ru Shapovalova Elena Yurevna PhD in Philology Associate Professor at the Department of Russian as a Foreign language, Don State Technical University 344018, Russia, Rostov region, Rostov-On-Don, Gagarin Square str., 1, room 8-539 rostaf-cours@mail.ru

Nesterova Anastasiya Svyatoslavovna Lecturer at the Department of Russian as a Foreign language, Don State Technical University 344018, Russia, Rostov region, Rostov-On-Don, Gagarin Square str., 1, room 8-539 gifoskri@gmail.com

The concept of J. Fodor ^[20] on the genetic connection of language and thinking suggests that the basic pragmalinguistic principles remain unchanged in the language for a long time and the functional abilities of grammatical categories to be associated with personal preferences remain despite linguistic variability. This allows us to establish the preservation of the model of the formation of psycholinguistic connections of the plan of expression of the speaker's mental activity with the choice of one of the grammatical or textual categories.

One of the most revealing in relation to the methodology of identifying the speaker's personality is the paradigm of the verb category ^{[10, 15]}. The situational choice of one of the verb forms indicates the speaker's preferences and attitude to the subject of discussion, for example, the expressions: "Finally do your homework" and "Finally Do your homework" are equivalent in meaning, but have different motivating power and meaning for communication participants. The verb of the perfect form "do" is perceived more categorically and indicates the dominance of the realized event in the speech act (what should be done exactly), and the verb of the imperfect form "do" indicates the absence of activity on the part of the addressee and indicates the predominance of the plan of the unrealized event (still not done) ^{[12, p. 71]}.

A comparison of paradigmatic relations in the Old Russian language shows the closeness of the psycholinguistic connections of the plane of expression in comparative historical aspects.

For example, the verb biti, in addition to the meaning "beat", has a contextual meaning "to do", which allows us to compare the expressions biti with a person (to ask) - knock out with a person (to persuade) – in this case we see the proximity of the categories of unrealization / realization of the event using the same paradigmatic means as in modern Russian: knock out (building materials) – in vain to beat against a high threshold, to run out (praise) – to run for praise, to knock out (advance payment) – to pound (colloquially. to worry about something), to beg (promise) - to beg for leniency, to torture (stanza) - to suffer over a stanza, etc. This word - formation type combines the derivatives of two varieties: with temporal semantics and with semantics indicating opposition to certain undesirable circumstances. At the origins of the paradigm formation are single verbs, in which these semantic variants are also presented quite clearly. This is first of all to survive "to live somewhere for a fixed period" (cf. "And to me  Ivan the long summer of Survival" ^[2]), where the temporal semantics is quite clearly expressed, as well as the semantics of overcoming difficulties, obstacles: "it was not easy to stand on the sea" ^[2]. In the XVII century, such singular verbs did not yet constitute a word-formation type, and therefore there is no reason to single out the corresponding word-formation meaning. Later, the number of verbs with similar meanings in the language increases and the meaning of "overcoming" time or undesirable circumstances becomes typical.

The deep historical connection between word-formative, lexical and grammatical meanings is already manifested in the fact that the word-formative meaning is formed on the basis of generalization by verbal prefixes of the lexical meanings of those verbs with which they are combined, while changes occur both at the level of the meaning of the word (lexical) and at the level of shades of meaning (semantic), which indicates the presence of pragmatic variability and the ability to vary word-formation models to choose the most familiar. This property of verbs is realized throughout the national corpus, regardless of the historical period of its existence, which indicates the universality of the model. Consequently, observations of the facts of the Old Russian language and their implementation in texts using previously developed techniques allow identifying the speaker's personality with the same success as in modern Russian.

As a pilot project for the study of the speech portrait of the ancient Russian author by the methods of pragmalinguistics, it is proposed to study the portrait of Ivan IV. The research material was the personal letters of the tsar, the methods were the diagnosis of the speaker's speech personality by his speech behavior ^[11].

Before proceeding to the systematization and analysis of the facts of the verbal behavior of the author of the messages, a brief preliminary historical commentary should be given. As S. O. Schmidt, one of the most serious researchers of the issue, notes, "a man of great literary talent, Grozny is just as unrestrained in his literary activity as in the state field. Grozny considered the literary editing of his writings unnecessary ("the word is more fleeting, not thorough"), and his closest collaborators did not risk making even stylistic corrections to these writings. Hence the sloppiness of the form, numerous repetitions and digressions, the sprawl of the presentation, the accumulation of poorly interconnected quotations. But hence the immediacy of the presentation, the naturalness of the language, the fullness and variety of vocabulary. All these features noticeably distinguish the epistles of the Terrible from the writings of Kurbsky, elegant in form, laconic, carefully thought out, "like being skilled and learned"" ^{[19, p. 257]}.

This quote justifies the possibility of using Ivan the Terrible's correspondence as a material for the study of his speech personality in the best possible way. The deliberate preservation of the style of colloquial speech by the tsar and the absence of editorial edits allows us to study the psycholinguistic features inherent in this particular person ^{[5, 7]}.

At the same time, it should be noted that part of the correspondence of Ivan the Terrible exists in several editions, differing in some variability in the completeness of the presentation of the material. This is due to the peculiarities of the clerical work of the Moscow Kingdom of the period from the 1530s to the 1700s (see the history of the origin of the lists of messages in the collection "The Epistles of Ivan the Terrible" ^{[14, pp. 529-555]}). Based on the research of S. O. Schmidt, Y. S. Lurie, L. E. Morozov, etc., we consider these texts as author's, believing that the changes made by the scribes did not concern the main linguistic features of the tsar's style, which is proved by the coincidence (more than 70%) of the main editions of the texts, differing only in completeness and some errors related specifically to the work a copyist.

 This allows us to talk about the reconstruction of the image of Ivan the Terrible according to epistolary monuments, with a certain degree of probability coinciding with the direct speech portrait, which is reconstructed by the methods of pragmalinguistics by direct observation of the living speech of a historical linguistic personality.

The title speech formulas in the "Messages" constitute the status of the Speaker in the eyes of the reader, determining the tone and order of interaction of communication participants. As is the case with any form of slogan, a perception model is imposed on the reader in a certain way  The speaker and the desired perlocative effect, which indicates a desire to show leadership even within the framework of correspondence with an equal statesman (for example, the kings of Poland and Sweden).

The status character of the titling of officials in the Middle Ages and the beginning of Modern times is described in detail in historical studies, but we should note that the titles of monarchs in the history of civilization perform not only a purely nominative function, as proper names, but also a diplomatic one. The title of the monarch indicated the boundaries of his power and the position that he and his state occupy in the world. Distortion of the title in official or other documents is equated with an encroachment on the sovereignty of the state ^{[9, p. 6-15]}. For example, after Ivan the Terrible adopted the title "tsar" (i.e. Caesar, emperor), not all monarchies of the world agreed to accept the changed legal formula for the title of the Russian tsar in international relations and in peace and other treaties it was specifically prescribed that the contracting parties recognize the status of the title of the new emperor ^{[17, 18]}.

It should be noted that the official formula of the title of Ivan the Terrible in the messages is constantly being supplemented by him. Thus, depending on the communicative intentions, the concentration of Russian statehood appears: "pious", "blessed" (close to God), "divine" (sent by God). His letters can be "commemorations" (reminders) or "a terrible command" (ultimatum).

The reaction of the addressees to the tsar's messages is interesting, which we can observe, for example, in Andrei Kurbsky: "A brief reply from Prince Andrei Kurbsky to the very wide epistle of the Grand Duke of Moscow." The fact that Kurbsky in the title, i.e. the title of the letter, calls Ivan the Terrible only the Grand Duke of Moscow, is by the standards of the standards of etiquette adopted at that time a direct insult. Already at the level of the phatic function of messages, we see a conflict of the speaker's image in terms of illocutionary intent and perlocutionary effect, when both communicants, when changing communicative roles, subvert each other's speech image ^{[3, 4]}. Even more interesting in this regard is the 1570 message to Queen Elizabeth of England. The text of this message is a restrained (for Grozny) note of protest against the violation by the British side of diplomatic protocol in the conduct of business, which is fraught with infringement of Russia's state interests. In this message Ivan the Terrible omits his title and does not mention the title of the English Queen. This fact is interpreted by some historians (for example, Valishevsky, Radzinsky) as neglect, whereas in this case we are talking about the emphasized informal nature of the letter, even to some extent intimate, where Grozny tries to solve the brewing conflict without official notes, only at the level of interpersonal relations with Elizabeth. Here we see a manifestation of unprecedented restraint and even the disposition of the tsar, since in letters to other sovereigns expressing discontent, Ivan the Terrible never shows such modesty, but immediately demonstrates his own superiority.:

"The divine and most honorable, the trinity, the only, the prepetago, the three-part, inseparable nature of the father and the son and the Holy Spirit, all containing the mercy, power and will of the Scythian ruler of the Russian kingdom of the great sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich of all Russia / .../ our highest royal threshold, our honest degrees of majesty, this terrible commandment with a great commandment yes there is" ^{[14, p. 143]}.

Thus, already within the framework of the mandatory speech formula of presenting the addressee to the addressee, one can observe the realization of the author's attitude to the reader, his desire to take a particular position in the aspect of leadership in communication, a certain verbal game that reflects an individual approach to each interlocutor.

The lexico-semantic and stylistic levels of the main part of the messages are characterized as extremely diverse in terms of the speech elements used by Ivan the Terrible: traditional Church Slavonic book vocabulary, religious quotations, Moscow vernacular, clerical phrases, reduced expressions. For this work, those lexical and stylistic features of Ivan the Terrible's speech that relate to the author's self-presentation and the reader's perception of his personality are of interest. From this position, the material of the messages should be divided into two categories: polemical messages, in which the author's personality is presented in the form of an absentee discussion with an opponent, and reference ones, where the author does not count on polemics, but only states the essence of the issue.

Each message compositionally consists of three parts: the address ("title"), where Ivan the Terrible's self-presentation is indicated by presenting it to the reader; the precedent part, where the plot of the discussion is briefly outlined (the reason that prompted the tsar to write a letter and the theses to which the tsar found it necessary to respond); in fact, the message of the Terrible. It is important to note that such a composition, contrary to the opinion of a number of researchers (Schmidt, Rogov, etc.), is traditional for the epistolary genre of the late Middle Ages – the beginning of Modern times in Russia (see, for example, the correspondence of the Archbishop of Novgorod or the epistles of Alexei Mikhailovich). The three-part composition made it possible to perform the main phatic and informational functions of written communication: to present the author properly, to limit the correspondence discussion to the merits of the case, to avoid misinterpretation (as the interpretation of the ancient rhetorical canon suggested) and to present the necessary information. Changes in this concept will occur only in Peter's time, when the precedent part is either minimized or omitted.

In polemical letters, Grozny builds a self-presentation in the form of a correspondence dialogue, where each quotation of the precedent text is opposed by the antithesis of the tsar, which is often a repetition of the opponent's thesis, but already addressed to himself. For example, what the Terrible writes in the answer to Kurbsky. Kurbsky: "if you brag about darkness in your pride", Grozny: "ti... you brag about pride", "you brag about madness", "you brag about pride above measure" ^{[14, p. 47]}.

In general, repetitions, retellings and juggling with arguments of the opposing side are a characteristic feature of the polemical messages of Grozny, where the author's leadership positions in relation to the addressee of the messages are built on the principle of opposition, where the superiority of the tsar in all qualities in comparison with the addressee is demonstrated based on the addressee's own words. Interesting in this regard is the message to Vasily the Dirty, where the Terrible chastises his duma nobleman. He quotes Gryazny's letter in his own words, citing counterarguments to his theses, proving the inconsistency of the author of the precedent text and emphasizing his own significance: "Did you think that it was like this in the Crimea, how did I stand behind the food joke? Crimeans do not sleep like you" – at the tsar's feast, the tsar's guests are guarded by the power of the sovereign himself. "And what do you say to a great man – it's something that was done by my sin <...> And you would have remembered your majesty and your father in Oleksin <...>, and you in the village of Peninsky had little that was not in hunting with dogs." Grozny demonstrates that Dirty refers to his professionalism as a statesman, whereas he started his career from the very bottom. "And we don't lock up that you were in our neighborhood." Grozny confirms the fact that Dirty was close to him, but as a measure of ransom from captivity – contextually the value of the person himself – he writes: "And we will give you two thousand rubles for your approach, and there have been fifty Rubles before." At the same time, he also calls himself a price:"... and I will pay off a hundred thousand sovereigns on no one" ^{[14, p. 194]}.

In a polemic with his opponents, Grozny draws an image of an epic hero similar to famous ancient monuments, i.e., at the psycholinguistic level, he demonstrates the similarity of self-presentation techniques with the oldest forms of influence on the reader.

So, in a letter to Andrei Kurbsky, the Terrible "modestly" crowns a line of the largest statesmen of Byzantium and Russia, and even hints that he, as a tsar and a person, is a direct manifestation of God's will: "Our God Jesus Christ gave the only begotten son of God a victorious and forever invincible banner – the cross of honor to the first of the pious Tsar Constantine and all Orthodox kings and guardians of Orthodoxy. And after the will of Providence was fulfilled everywhere and the divine servants of the word of God, like eagles, flew around the whole universe, the spark of piety reached the Russian kingdom. The autocracy of the Russian kingdom, filled with this true Orthodoxy, began by God's permission from Grand Duke Vladimir, who enlightened the Russian land with holy baptism, and Grand Duke Vladimir Monomakh, who was honored by the Greeks, and from the brave and great sovereign Alexander Nevsky, who won a great victory over the godless Germans, and from the praiseworthy great sovereign Dmitry, who won for Before the victory over the godless Hagarites, up to the avenger of the wrongs of our grandfather, Grand Duke Ivan, and to the acquirer of the ancestral ancestral lands, the blessed memory of our father, the great sovereign Vasily, and to us, the humble sceptre holders of the Russian kingdom" ^{[14, p. 208]}.

Even more pathos is contained in the Epistle to Alexander Polubensky, where a lengthy (1600 words) compilation of quotations from sacred texts, the "Tale of Bygone Years" and the Vladimir Chronicle ends with the culmination of the entire Russian, and possibly world history in the context of the author's self-presentation: "This three-numbered deity of the father and son and the Holy Spirit by mercy and power and will to cover, sometimes we protect and intercede and observe and affirm, and withhold the Scytho-Russian kingdom; we are the great sovereign tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich of all Russia [the full title follows] of our royal command of the word" ^{[14, p. 197]}.

Messages of a referential nature are distinguished by a more restrained self-demonstration, but nevertheless, in them the author forms the image of an "ideal person" who has power over the reader, regardless of his status. For example, the political intrigue with the "cession" of the Russian throne to Simeon Bekbulatovich is marked by the epistle of Ivan the Terrible, where he ironically calls himself "Prince Ivan Vasilyevich of Moscow" (i.e., the Grand Duke, since the throne is located in Moscow), and the addressee "Grand Duke of All Russia", emphasizing that the royal title remains unnamed, that is, it is reserved for Ivan. This is followed by a direct order to conduct collections of service people, on which the "cap" Grand Duke Simeon can only impose a formal resolution: "And would you show mercy, sire: forbade those people whom we will take to ourselves, to take away the patrimony, as was previously done with the appanage princes; would you tell them to give from their estates there is bread and money and all their junk, and I would order them to release their people without seizing their property" ^{[14, p. 195]}. The vocabulary of the message contains a lot of pejorative forms: "May your Majesty show us mercy, show us your sovereign decree," but from the "title" itself, "Grand Duke Simeon Bekbulatovich of All Russia was given this petition by Prince Ivan Vasilyevich of Moscow" and specific administrative instructions (which, in particular, are indicated by the missing particles of "would" with the verbs of the past tense – in the order system of the then document flow, this is equivalent to an order), the humorous nature of the message appears, which is an allegorical royal decree ^[6].

The message to Yan Khodkevich, after the formal title of the tsar, contains the praise of the addressee ("A brave, wise and venerable husband, you are worthy to be the first among your kind and to rule!") and then a request to act as a mediator in negotiations with Stefan Batory: "And you yourself would tell your sovereign, as well as your brothers, your ladies, and together with your brother, with the ladies of the rada, you would tell your sovereign, King Stefan, that your sovereign would immediately send his ambassadors to us, and we we want to make peace with him in a decent way and establish friendly relations" ^{[14, p. 205]}.

This message, like other business letters of the tsar (for example, the already mentioned letter to Queen Elizabeth, correspondence with Batory, a message to Teterin), contain almost no subtext of self-affirmation, only at the formal level there are indications of the author's royal dignity.

Methods of classical lexicology and methods of functional pragmalinguistics involve the study of the lexical composition of the components of a speech utterance, which makes it possible to better understand the motives of the author, his perception of the interlocutor and the purpose of communicative influence. The synthesis of methods makes it possible to determine the author's strategy of speech influence on the addressee of the message and the reaction expected by the author.

As already mentioned, Ivan the Terrible's speech in the messages is extremely diverse, while in them Ivan the Terrible implements only two author's strategies: suppression of the interlocutor and absolute dominance in communicative interaction and some parity, while maintaining a rigid position on fundamental issues.

Summing up the research, we can note the following:

There is a possibility of diagnosing personality in the diachronic aspect of the development of language and literature by methods of pragmalinguistics. This conclusion is substantiated by the generality of linguistic and cognitive decisions when choosing the means of speech influence on the listener by the Speaker. As the analysis shows, the mechanism of such a choice is based on psycholinguistic models of human thinking that have a fairly long period of genesis.

The question studied as an example of such features of Ivan the Terrible's speech portrait as dominance in communication with the interlocutor shows that the use of four strategic models is characteristic of the Terrible:

1) Precedent, which consists in quoting religious texts, references to historical events, listing biographical details of the life of the Terrible, serving as an example of his deeds. The functional component of these texts consists in suppressing the interlocutor with an abundance of text – demonstrating the objective reasons for the superiority of the author of the text over him: "This fearful deity of the father and the son and the Holy Spirit in person, in the same hypostasis, is professed being and worshipped and glorified and beginningless, and infinite by will and will and power and action of creation, rivers God "let there be light" and there was light, and other creatures of creation, both on the mountain in heaven and on the earth below and in the underworld..." ^{[14, p. 197]}. In particular, in the epistle to Polubensky, the mention of God makes up almost 15% of the total number of words in 2300 units, Princes Igor, Yaroslav the Wise, Vladimir Monomakh, the Apostle Paul and only 14 historical and mythological characters are mentioned. A wide ethnogeographic excursion is given with the mention of the legendary Hagar, Syria, Prussia, Sarmatians, Moors and other peoples. At the same time, the substantive side of the message (denial of claims) contains only about 300 words. Numerous repetitions, amplifying forms, figurative expressions ("like an eagle flying") emphasize Grozny's leadership positions in relation to the interlocutor.

2) Autopanegirical model. The essence of this model is the direct praise of the author himself. Two types of strategy implementation are manifested here: direct autopanegirism: "sceptre holder", "royal majesty", "dean", "pious", "righteous", etc.; the second way is through ironic self–deprecation, easily interpreted as a contextual antonymy: "Ivanets Vasiliev" (diminutive), "with his kids" (the heirs have the same title as the addressee, i.e. the addressee significantly exceeds the addressee in the title), "they beat the forehead" (obvious irony).

3) Ostracism. Ivan the Terrible is characterized by a kind of humor, which he shows in relation to dependent people (see messages on behalf of the boyars to Jan Khodkevich, Stefan Batory, a letter to Vasily Gryazny, a message to Simeon Bekbulatovich, etc.), but at the same time he is equally characterized by direct insult to interlocutors, including using invectives: "dog", "sobatsky son", "drochon", "palaumova rod", "rowdy son", "rotten womb", etc. It is noteworthy that when Kurbsky reproaches the tsar for using obscene words, the tsar replies to him: "like a rose, I also say the same thing" and "the word is just passing, and not in detail." A conscious desire to assert oneself by demonstrating superiority in relation to the recipient of the message surpasses the need to observe etiquette in the context of communication with a deliberately disrespected or low-value interlocutor (in the eyes of Grozny).

4) The parity model. Implementing the parity model, Grozny shows restraint in the aspect of expressing leadership in communication. In this case, the texts are much more concise in content and less saturated with lexical and syntactic constructions, which can be attributed to the author's dominance. As a rule, no attacks on the person are used against the interlocutor, and the assertion of the author's identity is reduced to the use of the title of sovereign.